Talk:Adam Torres/@comment-3451943-20110227034239/@comment-2227733-20110227171119
^Okay, my answer to your question is going to be a long rant, so just letting you know that it may be TL;DR. Oh also keep in mind here that my Biblical knowledge isn't perfect, but I daresay it's a lot better than the layman. Short answer, it doesn't. The only people Jesus himself judged and condemned were a) People who turned God's temple into a marketplace, and b) The Pharisees. The Pharisees were supposed to be the religious authorities at the time. I say "supposed" because they didn't follow their own religion. They followed small parts of the Law (like tithing, not eating particular foods, etc.) and ignored the big parts like mercy and compassion. They passed heavy judgements without trying to help them, and boasted that they're better the "sinners" and bragged about how close to God they are, or at least how close they believe they are. There's even a part in an Aesop Jesus taught about how a thief begged God for forgiveness, whereas the Pharisee thanked God that they're better than the thief. Basically the modern day equivalent would be "Bible Thumpers." Jesus really only judged them and condemned them because they're the archetypal religious hypocrites. Furthermore, Jesus was actually friends with the sinners and lowlifes of the time period (prostitutes, tax collecters, fisherman...), the people who the Pharisees passed judgement on. Furthermore, most people I've seen saying homosexuality is a sin use passages from the Old Testament when they're talking about the Old Testament Law, aka the Old Laws. The Old Laws were meant specifically for the nation of ancient Israel, and there's not any time in the Old Test. in which God tried to get other nations to follow the Laws. In the New Test., in REPEATEDLY states that Jesus made it so that the Old Laws no longer have to be followed. Furthermore, the New Test. also says that if you're going to tote some part of the Old Laws as being mandatory, then you have to follow the Old Laws TO THE LETTER. Meaning that if you're going to follow one part of it as if it were mandatory, you'd have to follow ALL OF IT. That means among other things, no shellfish, no playing with a pig skin (there goes football, lol), and a woman who gets herr period or a guy who gets a wet dream have to ritually purify themselves. As a closing statement, I'd like to add that there's a part where Jesus heals the manservant of of Roman soldier. Most people today interpret the word "manservant" to be just a servant who's male, but the ancient word used could also apply to a homosexual romantic partner. I'm not saying that's the correct interpretation, I'm just saying that it could possibly be interpreted that way; it's one of the more ambiguous parts of the Bible. So if anything, based on that part, one could actually make an argument for the Bible being pro-gay. Hope this all makes sense!